4 ms·

Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser[1] is one datum. The Schmeisers lost their heirloom corn they had been growing for generations when a neighbour grew Monsanto c

by deepnet 10y ago

Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser[1] is one datum. The Schmeisers lost their heirloom corn they had been growing for generations when a neighbour grew Monsanto corn, which pollinated some of the Schmeiser's plants. Because Monsanto had patented Roundup-ready corn, the Schmeisers lost the right to grow their unpatented family corn as some contained patented DNA. The court ruled 5% contamination was enough to assert IP rights and the Schmeisers could no longer grow their corn. Seized ownership by genetic contamination is clearly a huge risk. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmei...

adanto6840 10y ago
If you read the linked Wikipedia entry, the first paragraph makes it pretty clear that your re-telling of the story is, at the least, not fully accurate: "The case drew worldwide attention and is widely misunderstood to concern what happens when farmers' fields are accidentally contaminated with patented seed. However by the time the case went to trial, all claims had been dropped that related to patented seed in the field that was contaminated in 1997; the court only considered the GM canola in Schmeiser's 1998 fields, which Schmeiser had intentionally concentrated and planted from his 1997 harvest. Regarding his 1998 crop, Schmeiser did not put forward any defence of accidental contamination." Emphasis added. They did not put forward the defense of accidental contamination because it was indeed not accidental; instead, they were trying to add traits of the GM crop into their own. Where you stand on that practice may vary, but they certainly were [intentionally] taking advantage of the superior traits of the GM crop. Whether or not it should be allowed to be intellectual property is a completely different thing, but given that it can be considered IP right now, the corporation would be foolish to not protect their IP and therefore their financial interests for their shareholders.
- deepnet 10y ago
  I have heard this idea the Schmeisers benefited from Monsanto's Roundup-ready and I disagree. The Schmeisers didn't use Roundup, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled they experienced no benefit from the Monsanto Genes. For the wider picture this is moot: intentionality was about liability - the contamination lost them their heirloom regardless. This is of grave concern to Nations as it could well mean in a few generations none of that species can be grown without Monsanto permission and license fees.
nickpsecurity 10y ago
Great example. That combined with activity I've read on seed production and acquisitions is already enough to fight their existence.

by deepnet 10y ago

adanto6840 10y ago

If you read the linked Wikipedia entry, the first paragraph makes it pretty clear that your re-telling of the story is, at the least, not fully accurate: "The case drew worldwide attention and is widely misunderstood to concern what happens when farmers' fields are accidentally contaminated with patented seed. However by the time the case went to trial, all claims had been dropped that related to patented seed in the field that was contaminated in 1997; the court only considered the GM canola in Schmeiser's 1998 fields, which Schmeiser had intentionally concentrated and planted from his 1997 harvest. Regarding his 1998 crop, Schmeiser did not put forward any defence of accidental contamination." Emphasis added. They did not put forward the defense of accidental contamination because it was indeed not accidental; instead, they were trying to add traits of the GM crop into their own. Where you stand on that practice may vary, but they certainly were [intentionally] taking advantage of the superior traits of the GM crop. Whether or not it should be allowed to be intellectual property is a completely different thing, but given that it can be considered IP right now, the corporation would be foolish to not protect their IP and therefore their financial interests for their shareholders.

deepnet 10y ago
I have heard this idea the Schmeisers benefited from Monsanto's Roundup-ready and I disagree. The Schmeisers didn't use Roundup, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled they experienced no benefit from the Monsanto Genes. For the wider picture this is moot: intentionality was about liability - the contamination lost them their heirloom regardless. This is of grave concern to Nations as it could well mean in a few generations none of that species can be grown without Monsanto permission and license fees.

nickpsecurity 10y ago

Great example. That combined with activity I've read on seed production and acquisitions is already enough to fight their existence.